Ford Muscle Cars Handling and Performance Upgrades

Ford muscle cars have always been very popular. The Mustang, especially, is an American icon. When it comes to performance handling, drivers such as Parnelli Jones showed that the blue oval could be a force to be reckoned with on a road course too. While classic Fords generally don’t enjoy the type of after-market support the GM cars do, there are still some really excellent parts available to address the unique needs of Ford muscle cars.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Please feel free to share this article on Facebook, in Forums, or with any Clubs you participate in. You can copy and paste this link to share: https://musclecardiy.com/performance/ford-muscle-cars-handling-and-performance-upgrades/

One very cool thing when it comes to Ford muscle cars is that along with their good and bad points, almost all of them share very similar suspension components. That means the topics I cover here apply to everything from 1960 Comets to 1973 Mustangs, including 1966 to 1971 Fairlanes and 1968 to 1971 Torinos. But the Mustang/Cougar gets the majority of the aftermarket attention because the parts start to get a little mo re exotic.

If you read Chapter 8 on GM muscle cars you noticed some common themes. If not, go back and read it, there’s good information there and it’s always fun to know the other owner’s car better than he or she does.

Front Suspension Options

Again, the worst factory design elements are in the front end and this is where you see the biggest gains for the least time and money. Unlike most other cars of the era, traditional Ford muscle cars have the springs on top of the upper A-arms and use them as the weight-bearing arms. That means that the geometry solutions are Ford specific. As on many of their contemporaries, the suspension geometry is very backward. Camber curves are positive in bump, especially in 1960 to 1964 cars.

Upper A-Arms

Thanks to Ford suspension engineer Klaus Arning and Carroll Shelby, things improved in 1965 and later, when they included a modification similar to the Camaro G-Mod covered earlier. The upper/inner A-arm mounts are dropped to change the angle of the upper A-arms and the inner pickup points are moved for improved camber gain and a higher roll center. This was a step in the right direction, but a more aggressive version can be employed on 1965+ cars for further gains. Because the upper A-arms mount the springs, Fords also received a 1-inch drop in ride height. Several companies, including Total Control and Pro Motorsports Engineering, offer templates to do this conversion.

As always, when you make one change you have to change other things too. Dropping the cross shaft with stock upper A-arms can lead to angular ball-joint bind in bump, especially if the car is also lowered with springs. There is a “negative wedge” kit available to change the installed angle of the ball joints, but you may still run into issues trying to get a decent performance alignment. After-market arms, designed to work with this geometry modification, are strongly advised.

While this 1967 Fairlane 390 GT has been done as more of a traditional 1960s hot rod, they respond to the same performance-handling modifications that Mustangs do and, in fact, accept most of the same aftermarket parts. (Photo Courtesy Walter Szmodis)

This Maverick would also make a great platform for a performance-handling car. As time goes on, I suspect we’ll see more classic Fords set up to go fast around turns as well as in a straight line. (Photo Courtesy Walter Szmodis

A cool Mustang Pro Streeter, with tubs and huge bias-plies out back, and skinnies up front. The suspension is dialed in to hook hard and go fast in a straight line. But maybe you want to go around corners too? (Photo Courtesy Walter Szmodis)

One of the cheapest and easiest modifications you can do to a Ford is the Shelby Mod. This drill guide is available from TCP to make it easy.(Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

One of the few times A-arms can actually alter geometry in a meaningful way, these TCP arms with dropped cross shafts perform the Shelby mod without making any modifications to the car. They are also fully adjustable for easier alignment, and this one is made to work with a TCP coil-over conversion that mounts to the lower suspension arm. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Total Control Performance (TCP) also offers another option with its adjustable, tubular upper A-arms—a vertically offset cross shaft. This cross shaft mounts in the typical location, but lowers the pivots at the ends of the cross shaft to achieve the same modified geometry without templates, measuring, or drilling new holes. It’s clever and works very well. The adjustable turn-buckle feature of the arms also makes them very quick and easy to adjust.

Bushing selection for Fords is pretty easy because they came with greaseable steel bushings in the upper A-arms. These worked very well, so replacement arms usually continue to use either Teflon-lined or greaseable steel bushings as well.

Lower A-Arms

The lower A-arms are comprised of two separate units: an arm and a strut rod. The arm handles inboard/outboard loads and the strut rod primarily manages fore/aft loads. These parts are load bearing, but not weight bearing.

Of course if you want to get radical you need more than just A-arms. This road race car runs the full complement of Total Control Products suspension parts.(Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Typically Fords use separate lower arms and strut rods to form an A-arms on each side. The front bushings are very soft and have too much compliance to maintain correct alignment. RideTech’s solution is to replace this two-piece affair with a proper A-arm, which has a spherical bearing in front that allows freedom of movement with zero deflection. These arms are also adjustable for caster within a small range. Also shown are alignment plates and a TCP rack-and-pinion. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

There are some issues with the stock parts. The lower arm doesn’t need to be as beefy as arms with a spring seat but, even so, they are really flimsy. The stock rubber bushings also have a lot of deflection. The strut arms are sturdy enough but the huge bushing that mounts the front of the strut allows excessive caster change under load and contributes to quirky handling. Replacing the bushings with harder compounds helps this issue, but increases binding, so there’s no real net gain. The solution to the flexible lower arms is simple. You can box the arm for a low-buck solution, or you can step up to aftermarket tubular lower arms. The strut rod bushings require a more complicated fix.

Spherical Joints

In order to get the range of motion necessary, you really need some kind of spherical joint. The easiest and cheapest method is a bolt-on bracket, which mounts where the strut rod used to go into the bushing. A Heim joint bolts into the bracket and screws into the end of a tubular strut rod. This solution works, but you have all the street durability and NVH issues of the Heim to deal with. This method also has apparent caster adjustment built into the strut rod. That’s a cool feature to have, but if you change the length of the strut rod to get more positive caster, it also pivots the lower arm forward on its inner bushing. You have a little room to play with here if the bushing is rubber, but poly begins to bind almost immediately and Delrin or aluminum binds badly.

The factory eccentrics used to set the alignment in the lower arms often twist under heavy loads, compromising the alignment. These plates, available from TCP and RideTech, allow you to turn the plates until you achieve a rough alignment (fine tuning can be done with adjustable strut rods and the upper A-arms). Once installed, these are locked firmly in place and cannot move. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Other Options

The ideal solution would use enclosed greaseable spherical joints in both the strut and the arm, so the whole assembly can pivot freely regardless of caster adjustment. Total Control used the older Heim joint system years ago, but refined it further to use Delrin race True-Center flex joints. That makes for a very slick package with crisp handling and easy caster adjustment. They are not the least expensive alternative, but they’re the best lower arm solution I’ve worked with for the traditional Ford platform.

The “spring on the upper A-arm” design format has some pros and cons. It transfers a lot of load up high into the car’s structure, making beefy shock towers a must and engine access a bit tighter. This load also means that underhood structural reinforcements are a very good idea. One of the good points is how you have additional options when mounting coil-overs and springs. Most coil-overs still mount to the upper A-arms, which requires a compact unit. There are also packages that change things and mount the coil-over to the lower arm. Doing this requires a beefy tubular lower arm purpose-built for the task, but doing so allows ample room for the coil-over. It’s one of the few conversions with more room to work than it even needs.

Here you can see the TCP strut rods installed in conjunction with their lower arm. The arm also features a Delrin race greaseable flex joint. That allows a wide range of caster adjustment (with the adjustable strut rods) without binding the lower arm. This arm is also many times stronger and more rigid than the flimsy stamped-sheetmetal stock parts. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

TCP uses another innovative approach. They retain the two-piece factory configuration. Technically, these units could even be bolted to stock lower arms. These spherical flex joints are greaseable and feature machined Delrin races for long term durability and NVH isolation. In person, these joints are like automotive artwork. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Unlike most other muscle cars of the era, Fords usually mounted the springs and shocks on the upper A-arms, rather than the lowers. Most aftermarket systems (like this TCP setup) retain this configuration. It has the advantages of simplicity and lower cost when compared to a coil-over conversion. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Even the more economical coil-over conversion has some very trick features, like this greaseable bearing upper mount and interchangeable upper coil-over towers to accommodate a really wide range of ride heights. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Another option is to mount a Shock-wave air spring to the upper A-arms. These arms (from RideTech) are made specifically for that. Like the TCP arms, they feature geometry-improving dropped cross shafts. These are single-adjustable, which requires them to be disassembled for adjustment, but it’s still a handy feature. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

This lower A-arm, also from RideTech, is designed to eliminate the factory strut rod setup and also to use a Shockwave shock/air spring. (Photo Courtesy RideTech)

If the budget doesn’t allow for the full-blown road race package, you can still run a good-quality coil-over, but use it with the stock arms. This package is also from TCP. When combined with the Shelby mod, upgraded lower arm bushings, alignment plates, and TCP strut rods, this would be a great-performing package on a much more modest budget. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

It’s also possible to change the spring-over configuration and convert to a coil-over, mounted to the lower arms. This improves the motion ratio of the spring and shocks (as I discussed earlier). Combined with the rest of the TCP system, it’s an outstanding option. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

You can also run conventional performance coil springs, which are available from many sources. If you order lowering springs, take a 1-inch drop for the Shelby mod or the vertically offset cross shafts into account (if you use one of them) when determining your final ride height. There are also options from Total Control and RideTech to use air springs if you prefer them.

Once again, shocks are critical. I’ve covered a lot of territory on shocks already so I’ll just say it again and then move on: Don’t skimp on shocks! There are plenty of good options and adjustable shocks always offer the most tuning range.

There are some replacement front clips available for Fords, but because they don’t use factory subframes or even K-members, there’s a lot of cutting and welding involved. The complexity of the Ford aftermarket front clips means they’re best installed by a good chassis shop. Because they are Mustang II–based (that’s Pinto to anyone who doesn’t sell them), they’re generally much better than stock and can be tuned for good handling performance. But whether they’re good enough to merit all of the extra fabrication work required to install them is debatable.

Rear Suspension Options

The rear suspension offers a lot of options, from performance leaf springs (and all the ways they can be augmented) to all-out torque-arm and four-link systems. There’s even a bolt-in independent rear suspension based on an original-period Ford design. So, what to choose? That’s going to depend on your goals and your budget.

Leaf Springs

The cumulative technology discussed previously certainly applies. You want springs designed for performance handling. They are likely to be lowering springs, so decide how much you want to lower the car and head in that direction. The cumulative technology discussed previously certainly applies. You want springs designed for performance handling. They are likely to be lowering springs, so decide how much you want to lower the car and head in that direction.

There are cool features available on some replacement springs that I haven’t seen as aftermarket offerings for any other brand. One is a choice of vertically offset spring eyes. The eye is the end of the spring where the bushings are. Typically, the ends roll upward to form the eye, putting the mounting bolts above the main leaf. Total Control offers a choice of this standard configuration, including a mid-eye arrangement and a reverse-eye.

On a mid-eye spring, the main leaf dips down before it curls upward, putting the mounting bolts in line with the top of the main leaf. This lowers the car about 1 inch without sacrificing any spring arch.

Mustangs and some other Fords benefit from intelligent leaf-spring design more than any other muscle cars. This system is deceptively simple looking. Look closely at the high-rate performance springs. They are a mid-eye design, which lowers the car and incorporates more forward spring bias. An additional anti-wrap-up leaf on top of the main leaf prevents wheel hop and enhances traction. The beefy shackles and poly bushings help improve lateral axle location under high cornering forces, and the double-adjustable VariShocks do wonders to keep the tires in constant contact with the road. The spring plates are the icing on the cake; they’re extra beefy and incorporate tie-down loops for securing the car to a trailer. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

The reverse-eye spring just curls down and around the bushings, putting the mounting bolts below the main leaf, which lowers the car about 11⁄2 inches. They are available in 4-, 41⁄2 -, or 5-leaf configurations, which basically translate into firm, firm plus better traction, and firmer. The half leaf is added on top of the main leaf, and only on the front half of the spring to prevent spring wrap and improve straight-line traction. Traction aids (with the usual caveats) and add-on Watts-link setups are possible means of augmentation.

An additional means of improvement is Total Control’s torque arm for 1964 to 1970 and 1967 to 1970 Mustangs. This unit is intended for use in conjunction with leaf springs. It’s adjustable for angle and uses a shackle at the front end to prevent binding with the leaf spring’s arcs of movement. It’s a great way to improve traction without hindering handling in the least. Combined with good springs and a Watts link, it should rival the performance of some of the higher-end multi-link/coil-over packages.

Spring Replacement

That brings us to the higher-end multi-link systems used to replace the leaf springs altogether. Again, you have a number of choices. Use the technology discussed earlier to look them over and consider the pluses and minuses of each one before you buy. As always, some are better suited than others for certain uses. The G-Link is a great multitasker in this category, just as it is for the Camaro. It may interest some Ford fans to know that the G-Link was designed and sold for the Mustang first.

For the hardcore handling enthusiast and racer, TCP has an outrageous torque-arm package complete with a Watts link and pushrod-actuated lay-down coil-overs. Practically designed on the race track, this system uses Teflon-lined Heim joints on the arms and a Watts link with billet-aluminum bell-cranks to transfer motion from the pushrods to the coil-overs. It may not be the best option for a street cruiser, but it surely impresses all who see it.

Ford also has an interim package between leaf springs and a full-tilt link/coil-over package. TCP offers a torque arm package for use with leaf springs. This takes over pinion angle control under heavy acceleration and braking, eliminating spring wrap. Note that it’s adjustable for pinion angle so it can be set in sync with the leaf springs. It uses a shackle with spherical joints to prevent binding in vertical travel or in torsion. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

There is also the option of adding a Watts link to the leaf-spring system. This can be done with or without a torque arm, and serves to add precision feel and a big dose of predictability to the venerable Hotchkiss Drive leaf-spring system. Combining the Fays2 Watts link and TCP torque arm, the leaf springs only need to hold the car up, as all other functions are carried out by the Watts and the torque arm. (Photo Courtesy Fays2)

Outrageous in a totally different way is the rebirth of the prototype T-5 independent rear suspension package, now available from CTM Engineering. It’s a faithful copy of Klaus Arning’s baby from 1964. It’s a Jaguar-esque IRS with stressed halfshafts for upper arms and trailing arms on each side. This type of suspension was state of the art in its day. I don’t think I’d use it on a hard-core performance car today, but it would make a great conversation piece and probably work really well in a sporty street/touring car.

Sway Bars

Sway bars aren’t an option with some of the more exotic rear suspension packages and some of them may not need them. But, on more typical cars, they’re generally a good idea. Keep the same general concepts of balance and tuning in mind when selecting bars for your Ford muscle car. Don’t overdo it with a huge front bar, especially if you’ve done geometry modifications. An adjustable-rate rear bar is always a handy tuning aid.

Flex Reduction

Chassis rigidity is a big issue with these cars, just as it is with many cars from this era. They don’t have a true front subframe, so you can’t technically use subframe connectors. But, the center span of the chassis is still torsionally weak and could really benefit from some reinforcement. Several companies offer parts to do this, ranging from Mustangs Plus’ weld-in structure kit (made from heavy-gauge sheetmetal pieces) to beefy tubular structure kits like those from TCP, which incorporate an X-brace for additional rigidity. These structural add-ons can yield huge reductions in chassis and body flex. They make the car feel much more solid and help everything from ride quality and handling to body panel fit and window sealing. If you’re serious about performance, this is a must-have part of your build.

If you do decide to do away with the leaf springs, there are some great choices for link/coil-over systems as well. This is a Chassisworks G-Link with the splined-end tubular sway bar option. It has the adjustable-length steel lower trailing arms with greaseable Delrin race flex joints at both ends and at the upper arms. This system is very adjustable and versatile. (Photo Courtesy Chris Alston’s Chassisworks)

RideTech’s AirBar system is similar to the G-Link in its basic format, but it lacks some of the adjustability and uses normal poly bushings in its steel trailing arms. It still achieves very good performance. The RideTech Mustang has no problems holding its own on track with much newer performance cars. They also offer some outstanding shock options for the Shockwaves, such as the cockpit-adjustable Select Series and the Titanium Series remote-reservoir double-adjustable shocks. (Photo Courtesy RideTech)

Trick suspension parts are fun to talk about but, if the chassis they’re mounted to isn’t rigid enough, the car won’t handle. This subframe connector and X-brace package from TCP is the best I’ve used to tie the chassis together and add torsional rigidity. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

When weight is a concern, tubular bars such as this MuscleBar from RideTech can be a big help. This bar also includes new-car-style Posi-Link end links. (Photo Courtesy RideTech)

Since sway bars are tuning aids, it’s especially helpful if they are adjustable in rate. That gives up more tuning options without having to buy more sway bars. This one has either soft or firm settings. (Photo Courtesy Hellwig)

Triangulation and additional chassis rigidity can come from unexpected places. The upper cradle for this TCP G-Bar rear suspension ties the unibody rails together and triangulates them with the driveshaft tunnel area of the floor structure. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

This Mustang chassis sports a set of weld-in subframe connectors; it’s a big step in the right direction. Also, note the factory torque box. Early cars didn’t have these unless they were K-code or Shelby cars. Some intermediate-year cars only had one, and in many later cars they’re rotted out from rust. These are critical for a good, rigid chassis so, if you don’t have them, install them. If you do have them, make sure they’re structurally sound. (Photo Courtesy Walter Szmodis)

Mustang front subframes are welded in, but they have the same structural issues as other unibody cars of the era. This car has had weld-in subframe connectors professionally installed by Ford guru Butch Szmodis. If they weren’t circled on this photograph, you’d think they were part of the factory underbody structure. (Photo Courtesy Walter Szmodis)

As always, a roll cage of some kind is also a great way to add chassis stiffness and safety. All the normal pros and cons of running a cage in a street-based car still apply.

Ford Fox Body 1974 to 1978

I don’t mean to offend anyone who owns a Mustang II King Cobra, but let’s face it; it’s a dressed-up Pinto. Yeah, due to that lineage, they typically get no respect. However, there are lots of performance parts available for the Pinto, or rather, Mustang II front end. Use the methodology covered earlier in the book to select upgrades that actually improve performance. Tubular front upper A-arms with screw-in Chrysler-style ball joints yield a nice improvement in camber gain due to their taller ball-joint studs. Sway bars, shocks, and springs are plentiful, but many of them are tailored to heavily modified versions of this front end and may not be a direct fit to the original cars. The rear end is a simple leaf-spring design, so all the information covered already applies.

You can find the aforementioned TCP lay-down coil-over package as well as a full-TCP front end with fast-ratio rack-and-pinion on Eleanor, the radical GT500KR movie car. It showed America that a well-set-up-classis muscle car could outrun a new BMW (and about 100 police cars) in a straight line, and through tight turns and city streets. The cool part? Almost everything, except the CGI bridge jump, was done by stunt drivers at real speeds in the actual cars. She performs as well in real life as she did on screen. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Overall, these cars are actually a pretty good platform for performance handling, combining light weight, a decent stock front end (with plenty of aftermarket support), and a simple, easy-to-upgrade rear suspension.

Ford Fox Body 1979 to 1993

Sharing the Fox platform used on many mid-size Ford cars, the Mustang began to really assert itself in the performance world. Initially low on both power and handling (as were most vehicles billed as performance cars in 1979), the Mustang really blossomed into a great performance car throughout the 1980s. The strut front end design has decent geometry, and performance modifications center mostly around alignment aids such as camber plates, and tuning parts such as performance rate lowering springs and sway bars. The information in this section also applies to Fairmonts, Thunderbirds, and any other Ford built on the Fox platform.

Because the shock towers are heavily stressed in traditional Ford front ends, bracing the upper structure of the chassis is as important as bracing the lower. The factory recognized this and installed stamped sheetmetal export braces on many high-performance Mustangs, and tubular Le Mans bars as well. These can be installed on cars that didn’t come with them, and many outlets sell reproductions. For more serious performance applications, lighter and more-rigid options are available from TCP and others. (Photo Courtesy RideTech)

Since Fox bodies use a strut front end, there are no upper A-arms to be concerned with, unless you have a Griggs Racing SLA conversion package with SPC A-arms. Otherwise, performance struts are a huge upgrade and coil-over conversion struts can be even more so. This unit from Chassisworks/VariShock is double-adjustable and is a simple bolt-in. These are available in three lengths for various applications and ride heights. (Photo Courtesy VariShock)

The F-117 Stealth fighter of Mustang II A-arms, SPC Performance arms are configured with optional black-anodized aluminum turnbuckles, vertically offset pivots, and a screw-in ball-joint plate. This format allows the use of standard Chrysler screw-in upper ball joints. Taller than the factory Ford units, but having the same taper, they improve the camber gain of the Mustang II front end. While adjustable, it still makes use of the factory adjustment slots and T-bolts, giving them a huge range of total adjustment. SPC also offers lower A-arms for stock springs, coil-overs, or air bags.

Mustang II-equipped cars are also lucky to use common-sized shocks, so you can run great shocks (like this VariShock QS2 double-adjustable unit) without having to make any modifications. (Photo Courtesy VariShock)

Many suspension packages are available for these cars, a lot of them intended for hardcore SCCA racing or drag racing. One intended for performance street use is RideTech’s Level 2. It includes adjustable-dampening air struts/shockwaves and tubular rear trailing arms. (Photo Courtesy RideTech)

This Ford structure package from TCP shows even more elaborate triangulation, which should add a lot of structural rigidity. Unlike the GM G-body mentioned earlier, these braces tie directly into load bearing suspension mounts, so their effect is even more profound. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

When you say “Fox body,” everyone thinks Mustang, but don’t forget the Mercury Capri, such as this 1985 5.0, and even the lowly Fairmont, which makes a great sleeper. (Photo Courtesy Walter Szmodis)

Rear Suspension

The rear suspension is a typical triangulated four-link design. The only unusual thing is that the spring seats are on the lower trailing arms rather than on the axle. That doesn’t make much difference except for changing the motion ratio of the springs, so don’t try to compare Mustang spring rates with those of other triangulated four-link cars with their springs mounted on the axle. The Mustang requires stiffer springs to attain the same wheel rates.

As is typical with factory triangulated four-link suspensions, the principal issues are poor axle locating and binding. The flimsy factory trailing arms use very compliant rubber bushings. This is especially apparent when you consider how many of these cars were fitted with horizontally mounted quadra shocks to limit wheel hop and aid traction. These kicker shocks (as they are sometimes called) dampen the rotational movement of the axle (when viewed from the side). More rigid arms and harder, less-compliant bushings prevent this problem, but they can also increase binding, especially in torsion. This adversely affects handling. This is especially true on uneven surfaces (like the streets in most of North America).

There are a few ways to go about fixing them. The first and easiest is to swap on a set of arms with greaseable flex joints or spherical pivots of some kind, such as Currie Currectracs or Maximum Motorsports (MM) HD/Extreme arms. The MMs also have an option for adjustable rear ride height. These are all a compromise, of course, but can be a pretty good one.

You can alter the dynamics of the rear suspension with an add-on Watts link, like the one sold by Fays2. This stabilizes and affixes the roll center as well as doing a great job of lateral axle location. Leave the rubber bushings in at least one end of the upper trailing arms to allow the Watts link to do its job unhindered.

Or you can swap in any one of a number of aftermarket rear suspension packages. There are lots of choices here, from torque arms to three-links and four-links, but keep in mind that most are designed for serious road racing, and as a result may have minimal ground clearance and little or no NVH isolation. Torque arm and Panhard bar systems are particularly popular with Fox-body Mustang road racers, and systems from Maximum Motorsports and Griggs are both good choices.

Maximum Motorsports also has adjustable-rate rear sway bars available. Steeda Autosports offers a five-link package, which is actually a four-link with Panhard bar. This package could theoretically provide better anti-squat than a torque arm is capable of. Tailpipe clearance with any of these systems is going to be compromised in some way, so expect to have to at least modify the tailpipes or plan on going to a custom exhaust system—maybe with side exits.

Flex Reduction

Again, chassis rigidity is lacking and should be improved. Subframe connectors and strut tower braces are available from a host of different manufacturers, which should give you some idea of how important they are.

On the more radical side is TCP’s cantilevered lay-down coil-over package with torque arms and a Watts link. This is an engineering marvel and looks almost too futuristic for a classic muscle car. It’s a proven performer on the road and track. Expect razor-sharp handling and response from this setup. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Like all triangulated four-link cars, Fox bodies are hypersensitive to the configuration of the rear trailing arms. These Currectrac arms use greaseable flex joints on one end to help prevent binding. The beefy construction and low-deflection bushings/flex joints also provide better-than-stock axle locating. (Photo Courtesy Currie Enterprises)

These TCP G-Link arms use Delrin race flex joints with a threaded closure system (versus the Johnny Joint snap-ring method). Both are very effective. (Photo Courtesy Total Control Products)

Good shocks and struts are of vital importance, as always. The Fox body is also better suited than some cars for coil-over conversions, and there are several available from aftermarket manufacturers such as Griggs, Steeda, and Chassisworks/Varishock for both front and rear.

Correctly outfitted, the Fox-body Mustangs and their kin are formidable performance cars with extremely capable handling.

Written by Mark Savitske and Posted with Permission of CarTechBooks

GET A DEAL ON THIS BOOK!

If you liked this article you will LOVE the full book. Click the button below and we will send you an exclusive deal on this book.